linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] watchdog: rzv2h: Set min_timeout based on max_hw_heartbeat

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+V-a8tJMfjVUNfA5wue0Zwpj=dDC9XypQ69L9SeZApRH8i1aA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2025 20:26:04 +0100
From: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>, 
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>, 
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>, 
	Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@...esas.com>, 
	Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] watchdog: rzv2h: Set min_timeout based on max_hw_heartbeat_ms

Hi Guenter,

On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 10:04 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On 8/1/25 13:51, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> > Hi Guenter,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 7:04 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/1/25 08:30, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> >>> Hi Guenter,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 2:52 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/1/25 04:05, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Wolfram,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you for the review.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 5:10 AM Wolfram Sang
> >>>>> <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 04:59:13PM +0100, Prabhakar wrote:
> >>>>>>> From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Update the watchdog minimum timeout value to be derived from
> >>>>>>> `max_hw_heartbeat_ms` using `DIV_ROUND_UP()` to ensure a valid and
> >>>>>>> consistent minimum timeout in seconds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't understand this change. Why is the _minimum_ timeout based on
> >>>>>> the _maximum_ heartbeat?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The reason for deriving min_timeout from max_hw_heartbeat_ms is to
> >>>>> ensure the minimum watchdog period (in seconds) is compatible with the
> >>>>> underlying hardware.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> max_hw_heartbeat_ms is calculated as:
> >>>>> max_hw_heartbeat_ms = (1000 * 16384 * cks_div) / clk_rate;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This value varies by SoC:
> >>>>>     RZ/T2H: cks_div = 8192, clk ≈ 62.5 MHz -> max_hw_heartbeat_ms ~ 2147ms
> >>>>>     RZ/V2H: cks_div = 256, clk ≈ 240 MHz -> max_hw_heartbeat_ms ~ 174ms
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since min_timeout is in seconds, setting it to:
> >>>>> min_timeout = DIV_ROUND_UP(max_hw_heartbeat_ms, 1000);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ensures:
> >>>>> The minimum timeout period is never less than what the hardware can support.
> >>>>> - For T2H, this results in a min_timeout of 3s (2147ms -> 3s).
> >>>>> - For V2H, it’s just 1s (174ms -> 1s).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I completely fail to understand the logic.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the maximum timeout is, say, 2 seconds, why would the hardware
> >>>> not be able to support a timeout of 1 second ?
> >>>>
> >>> The watchdog timer on RZ/V2H (and RZ/T2H) is a 14 bit down counter. On
> >>> initialization the down counters on the SoCs are configured to the max
> >>> down counter. On RZ/V2H down counter value 4194304 (which evaluates to
> >>> 174ms) is and on RZ/T2H is 134217728 (which evaluates to 2147ms). The
> >>> board will be reset when we get an underflow error.
> >>>
> >>> So for example on T2H consider this example:
> >>> - down counter is 134217728
> >>> - min_timeout is set to 1 in the driver
> >>> - When set  WDIOC_SETTIMEOUT to 1
> >>> In this case the board will be reset after 2147ms, i.e. incorrect
> >>> behaviour as we expect the board to be reset after 1 sec. Hence the
> >>> min_timeout is set to 3s (2147ms -> 3s).
> >>>
> >>> Please let me know if my understanding of min_timeout is incorrect here.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The driver is missing a set_timeout function. It should set RZ/T2H
> >> to 62514079 if a timeout of 1 second is configured.
> >>
> > Ok, you mean to handle the 1sec case, introduce the set_timeout for RZ/T2H SoC.
> >
> > Although we cannot achieve the exact 1sec case as we can have only 4
> > timeout period options (number of cycles):
> >
> > 1] For TIMEOUT_CYCLES = 1024
> >   - (1000×1024×8192)/62500000 = 134.22 ms
> > 2] For TIMEOUT_CYCLES = 4096
> > - (1000×4096×8192)/62500000 = 536.87 ms
> > 3] For TIMEOUT_CYCLES = 8192
> > - (1000×8192×8192)/62500000 = 1,073.74 ms
> > 4] For TIMEOUT_CYCLES = 16384
> > - (1000×16384×8192)/62500000 = 2,147.48 ms
> >
> > So to handle the 1sec case I'll set the timeout period to 8192 with
> > which we get a timeout of 1,073.74 ms.
> >
>
> Just four possible values to set the hardware timeout ? That is an odd
> hardware. In that case, you could also set the period to 1024 or 4096
> and set max_hw_heartbeat_ms accordingly. That would avoid the rounding
> error.
>
Yes sadly we have four timeout periods only. To clarify, you mean to
set `max_hw_heartbeat_ms` in set_timeout?

Cheers,
Prabhakar